![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Recently, I have been batting around the idea of submitting one of my short stories for archive review at HASA. So why is this a big deal? Just do it, right, Dawn?
The problem is that I have always made such a big loud noise about how I don't agree with processes that claim to judge what is "quality" fiction, something that is made even worse online, where even "blind" submissions are often easily recognized as belonging to a certain author and therefore prone (in my opinion) to greater bias than a review by true strangers.
For example, many of you have stories that I would know as yours the moment I read them or read the titles, even, in certain circumstances. I admit that I would find it hard to separate my feelings for you as a friend or an individual from my judgement of a story. And the opposite is unfortunately also true: I am sure that there are people in the Tolkien fanfic community who would decline one of my stories just because it was written by me. (None of these people, as far as I know, belong to HASA. If they do, they are not active over there.) And it's not hard to know what stories belong to me. Go to my "short story" tag and there's a list right there.
Besides that, I simply don't agree that even a huge pool of reviewers have a right to decide what is or is not quality. Now I've had it brought up to me before: But Dawn, you are an editor for a literary magazine. And you have been a fiction editor before and had the difficulty of actually choosing the "best" stories from a pool of submissions. Yes, but I see this as different. A literary magazine, to me, is nothing but a collection of pieces that the editor(s) find particularly good. It is the editor's opinions, certainly not a declaration of quality at large. Were you to read the same pool of stories as me, you would probably "rate" some differently than I do. And a literary magazine, also, includes a certain kind of fiction. A story from the genre of science fiction might be excellent to readers of science fiction, but I don't think that it would ever appear in The Praire Schooner. Not because it's bad but because they don't publish that kind of fiction.
But archives that require a "review" to get in on the premise of only wanting to accept fiction of "quality" are, in my opinion, assuming that a team of reviewers can make such a judgement. Even the most atrocious blue-haired, purple-irised, unicorn-riding "Mary Sue" would be good fiction to someone. On the other hand, a dense, psychologically-based story dealing with the Elven view of mortality might breeze into most archives...but there would be readers who would hate it. There are doubtlessly readers who hate my stories, who think that I'm long-winded, blathering, and--at times--pompous (they're certainly right on the first two counts...I'm not so sure that I can count as pompous, though), and I know there are people who love my stories. Who's right? Who's to same I write quality fiction...or not?
And so I've always assumed that I would avoid archives that "review" stories for inclusion. But recently, I want to give it a try, for a couple of reasons.
So that's where I stand. I'm interested in people's opinions on this.
But if you'd rather give me your opinion anonymously (and just because they're fun and I'm paying for the ability to use them), here's a poll:
[Poll #669291]
Now that it's 3 o'clock and I've done my blathering for the day, I will stop procrastinating and do some writing.
The problem is that I have always made such a big loud noise about how I don't agree with processes that claim to judge what is "quality" fiction, something that is made even worse online, where even "blind" submissions are often easily recognized as belonging to a certain author and therefore prone (in my opinion) to greater bias than a review by true strangers.
For example, many of you have stories that I would know as yours the moment I read them or read the titles, even, in certain circumstances. I admit that I would find it hard to separate my feelings for you as a friend or an individual from my judgement of a story. And the opposite is unfortunately also true: I am sure that there are people in the Tolkien fanfic community who would decline one of my stories just because it was written by me. (None of these people, as far as I know, belong to HASA. If they do, they are not active over there.) And it's not hard to know what stories belong to me. Go to my "short story" tag and there's a list right there.
Besides that, I simply don't agree that even a huge pool of reviewers have a right to decide what is or is not quality. Now I've had it brought up to me before: But Dawn, you are an editor for a literary magazine. And you have been a fiction editor before and had the difficulty of actually choosing the "best" stories from a pool of submissions. Yes, but I see this as different. A literary magazine, to me, is nothing but a collection of pieces that the editor(s) find particularly good. It is the editor's opinions, certainly not a declaration of quality at large. Were you to read the same pool of stories as me, you would probably "rate" some differently than I do. And a literary magazine, also, includes a certain kind of fiction. A story from the genre of science fiction might be excellent to readers of science fiction, but I don't think that it would ever appear in The Praire Schooner. Not because it's bad but because they don't publish that kind of fiction.
But archives that require a "review" to get in on the premise of only wanting to accept fiction of "quality" are, in my opinion, assuming that a team of reviewers can make such a judgement. Even the most atrocious blue-haired, purple-irised, unicorn-riding "Mary Sue" would be good fiction to someone. On the other hand, a dense, psychologically-based story dealing with the Elven view of mortality might breeze into most archives...but there would be readers who would hate it. There are doubtlessly readers who hate my stories, who think that I'm long-winded, blathering, and--at times--pompous (they're certainly right on the first two counts...I'm not so sure that I can count as pompous, though), and I know there are people who love my stories. Who's right? Who's to same I write quality fiction...or not?
And so I've always assumed that I would avoid archives that "review" stories for inclusion. But recently, I want to give it a try, for a couple of reasons.
- I just want to see if it would be accepted. I'm curious. Curiosity may have killed the cat, but satisfaction brought him back.
- I can't help but feel that I am pompous or prideful to assume that I am making some kind of impact by witholding my work from certain archives. Like the staff of these archives are wringing their hands even as I type this and considering revising their admission guidelines solely because Dawn Felagund doesn't agree with them, and they are somehow incomplete if they don't get stories by Dawn Felagund posted there. Hmph.
- I want an audience for my work. And HASA is one of the most-read Tolkien archives, so to have my work there would be a good thing. (And eventually other "review" archives as well.)
- Am I really compromising my principles to submit my work? I do not do reviews, not because I'm lazy or I do not wish to help other authors get into archives but because a) I do not trust myself to be fair in reviewing the work of a friend or someone well known to me and b) I do not believe that I have any right to determine what is quality fiction. But to submit one's work...is that really in violation of my belief that the system is wrong? I also do not agree with using standardized tests for admission into universities, but I have taken both the SAT and GRE, scored well on both, and am proud of my work. It doesn't mean that I am agreeing that standardized tests are appropriate admissions standards. It is simply something that I had to do to achieve a greater goal: getting into the university I wanted to attend. A necessary evil, to borrow the cliche.
So that's where I stand. I'm interested in people's opinions on this.
But if you'd rather give me your opinion anonymously (and just because they're fun and I'm paying for the ability to use them), here's a poll:
[Poll #669291]
Now that it's 3 o'clock and I've done my blathering for the day, I will stop procrastinating and do some writing.
Tags:
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-08 08:36 pm (UTC)Contents:
1. The Reviewer's Job
2. How to Phrase a Review
3. How to Write a Review
4. The Author's Job
And then... what does it mean if a story passes HASA's review? Nothing much. It means that five to nine people liked it enough to click on "approve". That's all. It doesn't say so very much about the story's quality. The reviews at HASA are not intended to help the author, they are only meant to keep up a certain standard in the public archive. You may get valuable feedback, but that is not a certain prospect.
About the right of the reviewers to judge the quality of a story - well, they have as much a right to say "I think this is a good story, because (xyz)" as every other reader of your story.
re 2: I'm sorry if I have to destroy some illusions there... being part of HASA's staff... the admins care about keeping HASA running and a lively community... the reviews admins don't care about which story gets in and which doesn't get in so much as that people stay civilized about the whole process.
re 3: I have a comparison of three archive sites, FFNet, HASA and TFF. For my published short stories HASA gets me more hits than FFNet, for my long stories HASA and TFF are about the same and not really good. What's more is that I get almost no feedback from the public side. So while I do love HASA, I don't think you have to worry so much about getting published there or not.
re 4: HASA review cannot be compared to standardized admission tests. It's more like a poll. You ask at least nine people to read your story, and they say "Yes, I like it, because..." or they say "No, I don't like it, because...".
And at least HASA has no discriminating, prejudiced and biased submission guidelines like SoA and OSA. The process is anonymous, and if you don't run around telling all your friends "I have just submitted a story for review at HASA", it is unlikely that someone who knows your short story will review it. The reviewer pool is fairly large and you are not that well known in fandom that everyone will recognize your work at once.
And even if they do... do you really think that they are not able to say "I like this, because..." without lying?
I really don't understand what your psychological problem with reviewing is - you do beta-work, after all. In many ways that is also passing judgement over the quality of another person's story. You do that with every word of criticism.
And again - would the review by a robot be fairer? By a thing that does not know anything about life as a human being?
Sorry for the rant, but I'm rather involved in the problem of how to review at the moment!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-08 09:06 pm (UTC)Dawn read this essay the day it was posted in Juno's LJ. ;)
And then... what does it mean if a story passes HASA's review? Nothing much.
That is not what I am worried about. If it didn't pass, I think I'd be disappointed but not much. It is far worse, from me, to get a harsh opinion from a writer I know and respect than an anonymous reviewer. I am more concerned with whether or not I can overcome my disagreement with forcing stories to pass review before archiving in order to submit my own work there. (And this is not just HASA...that is the convenient example as it is the "review" archive I visit the most and the one I am specifically considering at the moment.)
The reviews at HASA are not intended to help the author, they are only meant to keep up a certain standard in the public archive.
And that is exactly why I have a problem with such processes.
A certain standard of what? Quality? I am sorry, but I am not nervy enough to assume that my opinion is any judge of quality. I have my opinions, yes, and I willing give them in betas and reviews (not for archiving), but I cannot judge "quality" and I do not think that anyone else can either.
I might think that a purple-haired, unicorn-riding OFC who marries Legolas and fries Sauron with her Magick Eye Lasers (tm) is poor quality, but doubtlessly, there are other readers who would find this a fun and entertaining story and would find my character-based, psychology-infused babblings to be incredibly unexciting and bland.
I have no problem with the offering of opinions, but I do have a problem when a group of people takes it upon themselves to place a label of "quality" on a piece of writing.
re 2: I'm sorry if I have to destroy some illusions there...
I'm not sure what illusions you think you are destroying. I was being very sarcastic in that point.
re 4: HASA review cannot be compared to standardized admission tests.
I am not attempting to compare HASA review to standardized tests. I am attempting to compare my opinions on both as things with which I do not agree but might do simply because the opposite results in more harm to me than good and does nothing to further my point.
Do I disagree with standardized tests for university admission? I do. But to refuse to take them, who am I hurting? Only myself. The folks who run the SAT and GRE in the U.S. sure don't care whether I show up or not.
Do I disagree with forcing a story through quality control before publishing it? Again, I do. But am I accomplishing anything by refusing to put my work there? To remove the sarcasm from point #2 since my sarcasm obviously wasn't blatant enough, I do not think that any archive would care--nor am I prideful enough to think that they should care--that I am not submitting my work there. So what is accomplished? Again...nothing.
And at least HASA has no discriminating, prejudiced and biased submission guidelines like SoA and OSA.
I haven't spent much time in these places, so I'm curious what these standards are. That they don't accept slash? Just curious. :)
I really don't understand what your psychological problem with reviewing is - you do beta-work, after all.
I have no problem with reviewing. I have a problem with people who believe that their opinions count as a suitable judgement of quality or not and do not call acceptance into such an archive for what it is--x people's opinions--and instead try to pass such judgement off as an indicator of quality.
And again - would the review by a robot be fairer? By a thing that does not know anything about life as a human being?
That is not what I am saying. I am saying that I do not think that quality can be based off of anyone's opinion, human, robot, monkey, or Elf.
Sorry for the rant, but I'm rather involved in the problem of how to review at the moment!
Please don't be sorry. Dawn's LJ is never a rant-free zone. Quite the opposite in fact. ;)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-08 09:38 pm (UTC)As I understand it the reviews process at HASA is meant to insure nothing more and nothing less that 5 to 9 readers say "Yes, I like this story, because...".
It's not an absolute judgement of quality and no admin at HASA will say that it is. It's more like, if nine average readers are willing to give you in writing that they don't like this story, because... then that is an indication that it's not what people who come to HASA want to read there.
I think you have a problem with the attitudes of people who review. In a way I think that's strange, because you say you have no personal experience with reviews at HASA. You are not reviewing at HASA and you have never submitted a story for review at HASA. So... I think it's a bit unfair to single the reviewers at HASA out and assume that they are people who believe that they can pass judgement about submitted stories as if they were "an absolute truth".
I am one of those reviewers. A couple of other people on your flist are or have been reviewers there, too.
On what can quality be based in your opinion?
Other archives: certain genres may not be submitted at all, such as "Tenth Walker", "girl falls into Middle-earth", "slash"; OCs may only be submitted if they are not "Mary Sues". It is not clear who gets to decide if a story is accepted for those archives, how many people are involved in that decision and on which guidelines this decision is based.
I don't like that. It's not fair.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-08 11:02 pm (UTC)No. I don't. I can't have a problem with the attitudes of people who review, never having experienced said attitudes. 99% of my experiences with people from HASA have been positive, which is not something I can say of other archives which I occasionally visit.
My problem is with the notion that a group of people--no matter how large, small, experienced, or inexperienced--can judge "quality." Archives place restrictions on what works they accept in order to assure a certain level of "quality" are--in my opinion--taking something upon themselves that no individual can do. Quality means many different things to different people, and I don't believe that 9 or 9 million readers can accurately label a work as quality or not.
So... I think it's a bit unfair to single the reviewers at HASA out and assume that they are people who believe that they can pass judgement about submitted stories as if they were "an absolute truth".
I said to Jenni above that I do not mean to be unfair to HASA. It is the place to which I am currently considering sending my work, and I could change "HASA" to "OSA" or "SoA" or anything else, and my point would be the same: I do not think that any person can be a judge of "quality" aside from their own personal opinions. This is my opinion. You (or anyone) is welcome to disagree with me and as vocally as you like.
Nor did I mean it to be brought down to the individual level, to label people who review for archives as Bad People (tm). Do I think this? Of course not! I have a problem with the system and, again, people are welcome to disagree with me. Obviously, I don't think that you are a bad person with bad intentions for reviewing, nor would I place that label upon anyone else individually. But this doesn't change my view that no review system can accurately gauge quality.
I am one of those reviewers. A couple of other people on your flist are or have been reviewers there, too.
And that's every individual's choice and one that I respect. My problem with a system does not mean that I have a problem with the people who use it. I'm really quite baffled that this seems (to me) to be taken as a personal attack when it was not intended that way. If people like such a system and want to utilize it, that is their right and I respect their right to that opinion. Mine just happens to differ. There is nothing personal intended in that.
On what can quality be based in your opinion?
I see a difference between quality in my opinion and quality in general. For me to say that I find a story quality in my opinion is fine...but I don't presume that my opinion should then be extended as a general view on quality...or lack thereof.
It happens that I find most "Mary Sues" to be low quality in that I, as an individual, would not wish to read them. But for me to slap a label of "low quality" upon such a story and declare it as unfit for a certain archive is a leap that I personally am not willing to make.
Other archives: certain genres may not be submitted at all, such as "Tenth Walker", "girl falls into Middle-earth", "slash"; OCs may only be submitted if they are not "Mary Sues".
Ah. Having read the guidelines at OSA in an age long past, that does sound familiar. (I'm sure I've read it at SoA too...but that age has passed beyond memory!) Need I say that I agree that this is unfair, given my attitudes on accepting things into archives? :^P But then, I tend to dislike labeling stories in general. It reminds me too much of the "literary"/"genre" label that people throw around in the non-fanfic world as an excuse to exclude certain stories.
But again, there are people on my flist who are active at SoA and OSA. Just because I disagree with some of the policies of their communities does not mean that I think less of them.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-08 11:23 pm (UTC)Ummm.
But the system is not based on "quality in general" or the assumption that there is something like "the absolute standard of quality in fanfiction".
Actually, the system is based exactly on what you mention: It is based on quality according to the opinion of each individual reviewer, with the final decision relying on the principle of majority.
There's no perfect system, and in my opinion there is no such thing as "objective quality" of any kind. But I do value the random 5 to 9 individual decisions of average readers, based on their individual opinions of quality.
People complain about wrong or right decisions... I guess when it comes down to it, there are no right or wrong decisions there, just as there's no "objective or absolute quality". But the majority of members at HASA does want a public archive that is not open for general posting. If that is what the majority wants, it seems to me that a polled decision based on the individual opinions of random readers is a pretty valid and fair way of arriving at such a decision.
Personally I definitely prefer open posting to all those different submission procedures. Allow people to write and post what they want within the limits of the law.
Here's to FFNet!!!!
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 12:54 am (UTC)I would take issue with the small sample size, and I think this is--to some extent--where Dawn is going with her HASA-issues. 5 or 9 people isn't a whole lot in determining an on/off scenario of any kind. It's like me calling up 5 random people and asking their opinion on same-sex marriage. Extrapolated across 350 million (the population of the US), those 5 people probably wouldn't be representative of "average everybodys" out there. What if my "random" cold calling got me 5 people in Texas? That's a mathematical possibility, but I'd hope the opinions of Texans aren't representative of the entire US population.
Now I suppose if your story is really good and really mainstream, 5 approvals wouldn't be a problem. But then there are also 5 people who probably wouldn't "get" an experimental piece, good or not. That doesn't mean it's not good; it just means that the first, random 5 people to stumble across it and make judgments for an entire community didn't like it.
That's tough, IMHO.
Sorry to kick up a debate with someone I barely know. *Hiding*
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 02:36 am (UTC)Ah, another social science person! :^P
But then there are also 5 people who probably wouldn't "get" an experimental piece, good or not.
This is true. I find most fanfic to be relatively straightforward, "traditional" literature...which I suppose makes it treacherous going for one who does experiment!
It kind of goes back to what
An open archive, in my humble opinion, leaves people with the freedom to experiment...and mess up. And eventually succeed. It makes people more confident to write in their own voices. At least, I find this to be true.
And it gives readers the chance to experiment too with stories and styles they've never read before.
*raises glass again to the Pit of Voles* Wow, if I keep going like this, I'm going to be drunk before the night is out! :^P
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 08:56 am (UTC)About what gets accepted... I've been a volunteer there for more than a year now, and I have seen just about everything accepted. It would work better if more people were willing to review, if the reviewer pool would really mirror the opinions of all members. *sigh*
All in all I think if a site doesn't allow open posting, it's fairer than having the site owner and her friends decide on a whim... because if someone happens not to get along with that clique, she'll have a hard time to get in no matter how wonderful her writing is.
I know why I definitely prefer completely open sites.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 02:27 am (UTC)Yes it is. And if it was declared as such--"an archive selected by our members," for example--then that would be fine. Kind of like an award: something given by a specific audience in recognition of that audience's notion of quality. But visiting the site, I saw tons of mentions of accepting "high quality" work and rejecting work that is not "interesting," "well written," or that is "frivolous." In the FAQ, there was one line that expressed how you put it: 'What we do at HASA is say 'Here are stories a number of our members liked a great deal. We think you will like them, too!'" But the rest of the site focuses on its inclusion of only "high quality work," with the assumption that the review procedure is qualified to make that judgement.
Which I don't think is a judgement that can be made by a group of nine...or a group of any size.
But the majority of members at HASA does want a public archive that is not open for general posting. If that is what the majority wants, it seems to me that a polled decision based on the individual opinions of random readers is a pretty valid and fair way of arriving at such a decision.
Sure. I'd be hard-pressed to find a better method and, as I've said, I don't think that anyone considers my opinion worthy of "OMG! We must change the system because Dawn protests!" That'd be nice but.... (I'm just kidding! :^P)
My problem with it comes back to using that "poll" as equating to a judgement of quality. Every site has the right to determine their own archive criteria, and I don't deny HASA that just as I hope HASA will not deny the SWG archive the right to post any work that we want...but I take issue with the notion that such a selection denotes quality. And that's just my own issue...my own opinion.
Personally I definitely prefer open posting to all those different submission procedures. Allow people to write and post what they want within the limits of the law.
Totally agreed. I love being pleasantly surprised by something new, something I never thought I'd like. And it seems to foster a much friendlier, comfortable environment, at least in my experiences.
*joins you in raising glass the the Pit of Voles!* Long live ff.net! :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 09:06 am (UTC)But if the members of an archive site don't want to allow open posting, who will be able to decide?
I don't think that a group consisting of the site owner and maybe a few friends will be fair in the long run, no matter how good their intentions are. Cliquish behaviour is kind of inevitable that way.
Phrasing of stuff at HASA - well, it's writing. There's no perfect writing and God knows a lot of the stuff at HASA could do with some rephrasing. Why don't you post some of your ideas in the suggestions forum? If all the good ideas and constructive criticism remains outside HASA forever, nothing is going to change. And you are a part of that community, after all. :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-09 03:04 pm (UTC)I could not agree with you more. I was once told by a friend (with whom I no longer associate) that my stories would be popular in a certain archive because I was friends with the "right" people. And when that friendship fell through, the majority of the group divorced me, one by one. I suppose my writing will no longer be popular there.
(Of course, now I'm bound and determined to post my work there...just to be evol. >:^]] )
I think that for a selective archive, the HASA system is about as good as it gets. It's double blind, which I like because--although not foolproof--it certainly discourages selection for reasons of friendship or retaliation while encouraging honest responses. My problem comes with the wording on the site, that this methodology in some way assures quality. And I do not believe that it does.
I have no problem with archives where work is selected by the archive's members. But it should be phrased as just that. While reading the "About" and "FAQ" sections last night, I was cringing a bit because I could see how people might read the site as being snobby. Work that gets in his "high quality" and "well written"; work that does not is "frivolous."
Why don't you post some of your ideas in the suggestions forum?
I will look into this. Thank you. :)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-11 06:06 pm (UTC)*blinks* On what are you basing this?
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-11 08:29 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-12 10:17 am (UTC)I am a reviewer at HASA, OSA and SOA in case you are wondering and I have been working together with people from these archives for the MEFA's in a very pleasant and fruitful manner (which gave me a good feeling to see people from all archives unite for this cause), but this is the first time I see someone tearing down sister archives like this. So yet again, why do you say this? If you cannot identify with OSA and SOA, that's ok, I can understand (each to their own right?), but I am a proud member of OSA and SOA and it feels like you pass on the same judgement to me (and all the members of those archives) because I do submit my work there and review there and participate there.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-12 10:44 am (UTC)That is my own personal opinion about the guidelines those archives are operating with, and it has nothing to do with the authors and reviewers at those archives.
I am happy for everyone who feels at home there and enjoys those archives. I am very sorry that you feel I'm passing judgement on you. That was never my intention. I don't know you and I am sure that every author and reviewer at those archives is doing her best to make them a friendly and creative community (after all that's what fanfic archives are about, right?). Many of my friends archive their stories at OSA and SoA, therefore I know and respect that many authors are very happy there and that many wonderful stories are archived there.
But that doesn't change that I think that the guidelines of both archives, or to be exact certain aspects of those guidelines restrict the freedom of writing.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-12 10:54 am (UTC)Whenever you decide to write fan fic, there is an immediate restriction because you choose to write within a certain world. In order to stay true to that world and the creator of that world, there will always be restrictions if it was not only out of respect for the said author/creator.
Both SoA and OSA, are not discriminating and so on in their submission guidelines (actually with a broad concensus of all participants, the almost same set of rules were accepted for an archive I am an admin for), simply because they respect Tolkien and his creations. OSA is an adult het fic archive and operates regarding a philosophy, SoA is more a family friendly archive where the rating goes up 'till R. But both are created with an idea, mission, based on that submission guidelines (and I believe for recent changes, members were consulted (at least at OSA I believe), so that does reflect the wishes of the fans.
If you want true freedom in writing and creativity: write original fiction, because claiming that you can find that in writing fan fic and wanting it to combine with paying outmost respect for the creator of a fandom is just an illusion. You can't have both.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-12 11:09 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-12 11:22 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-12 10:45 am (UTC)OSA:
SoA:
SoA's guidelines are much better than OSA's, in some respects better than HASA's, because they are friendlier in tone. However, I am seriously put off by the long list of what you may not submit there.
I agree - of course - that it is the right of the site owner to ban as many genres for whatever reason from their site.
Nevertheless I think that it is discriminating to exclude so many sub-genres of fanfiction, and it seems to me that this is the consequence of a mindset prejudiced and biased against those sub-genres.
Once more, that is only my own personal opinion about the guidelines that those archives are based on.
It is an opinion that has nothing at all to do with the authors and reviewers at those archives.
As I already said, many of my friends post their stories there, and probably review there, too, and I am very happy if they are happy there.
So please accept my apology if my opinion has offended you.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-12 11:44 am (UTC)But reading the submission guidelines about OFCs I have to say that, between the lines, what they really mean is "No OFC please!" I mean, they narrow the possibilities so much that it's almost impossible for someone unwilling to spend an eternity creating a perfectly plausible OFC, only to have her blend in the background. Isn't the point of creating an OFC in fanfic having fun and adding something new to the canon?
And then, after all these restrictions, they tell you that it's a non-slash archive, too. While I understand that not everyone is open to the idea of M/M pairings, what else are you supposed to do is inserting some new character is well-nigh impossible.
Again, this is only my opinion, and I do not wish to insult anyone by expressing it.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-02-13 09:33 pm (UTC)Well than you are very easily discouraged or very negative. They encourage yout to come up with a decent written OC and you really have to take it very negatively to become this discouraged. Many of the, award winning, stories are based on a well explored OFC or OMC and are hosted there, so your assumption that they wanna scream "NO OFC" is very incorrect. I know Nilmandra of SoA though feels very strongly about the whole OC issue, so you are blaming the wrong archive here.
As for slash, I don't mind, as long if it fits to the canon of the said fandom. Since Tolkien never wrote slash, to me it shouldn't belong in the Tolkien fandom, but for Buffy, Will & Grace ect ect.
what else are you supposed to do is inserting some new character is well-nigh impossible.
Become creative, strong character and plot building. Which is tons of fun.